Hurt says he’d be more accessible than Perriello.

Hurt was also asked if voters should expect him, if he is elected, to hold a similar number of town hall meetings as Perriello has over the last two years. During the run-up to the health care reform debate, Perriello held more town hall meetings with constituents than any other congressman.

Hurt declined to commit to holding a specific number of town hall meetings, but promised to listen to constituents.

“I can promise you this, I will certainly be as accessible if not more accessible than Congressman Perriello has been,” Hurt said.

Depending on how things turn out next week, this might be a pretty interesting promise—yes, he used the word “promise”—to look back on in a year or two. Perriello has been enormously accessible (recall that he’s repeatedly addressed Tea Party groups), setting a pretty high bar.

Post navigation

11 thoughts on “Hurt says he’d be more accessible than Perriello.”

I agree that Congressman Perriello has really proven himself with the Town Hall meetings. I also believe Sen. Hurt is just making a good sound bite. I will be impressed if Hurt has just one Town Hall meeting. He can’t handle one Tea Party member in a debate, how is he going to handle a whole auditorium full of opposing views?

If Perriello loses, it will be a sad statement about American politics, especially since the guy attempted to rise above politics, make hard decisions, and do what he thought was right. Even SUSA is showing a huge movement towards Perriello from their last polls and among those who already voted, he is way up. This may indicate something about the enthusiasm gap that’s supposed to be heavily one sided.

On a slightly different note, I just don’t get why so many people are so angry and taking their anger out on certain people. They oppose the health care bill without being able to articulate why, they decry government spending in our own country after holding no demonstrations or protests on the issue when Bush asked to spend billions in another country for WMDs that did not exist, they hate the stimulus and say the President has failed to provide jobs without recognizing the primary actors who drive an economy (namely private individuals) or explaining how things would have been better had the government not spent the stimulus dollars to help fix state budgets (Virginia) which allowed them to have fewer layoffs or had not spent the money on infrastructure projects that undoubtedly provided jobs or had the government not given people tax cuts, they despise government bailouts but don’t discuss the alternative of letting huge financial actors and employers fail or the fact that many of them have paid back the government loan (and that’s even while ignoring the slightly inconsistent view that the President is to blame for the economic downfall and perhaps should have done more), they hate the tax increases that don’t exist, ignore people like Ezra Klein who show that the Democrats’ tax and budget plan benefits more people while costing less than the Republicans, and so much more…. Like I said, I just don’t get it. Maybe it’s not for me to understand.

I think the anger that C speaks of has a lot of origins. The first is that after 15 years of talking about it, most people realize that globalization is here. Truly, the U.S. no longer has the ability to get its way whenever it wants it. We’re a big player, but with globalization, we’re not a hegemon any longer. And globalization is finally affecting our standards of living in both good and bad ways depending on where you are in the economics sphere. Of course, that is part of the anger.

I also think the anger is due to the internet’s unhealthy effects on our lives. So few people are community individuals any longer. Instead, they have become islands among themselves. Loneliness and isolation also produce a lot of pent up anger. Then you end up with a lot of keyboard commmandos who post hateful things with no sense of responsibility.

Finally, I think a lof of elements of the left have been rather smug. I think Mr. Jaquith has done a good job of avoiding this, but a lot of his colleagues have not. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there is an enormous disconnect in this country. A lot of people on the left look with absolute contempt at those on the right. It’s not a healthy contempt. So many times, I hear “How could anyone be so dumb as to vote Republican?” These statements usually come from those who have doctorates, law degrees, M.D.s and Master’s. Elements of the left have truly conflated politics with intelligence. While Thomas Frank made some excellent observations about economics and politics in his books, I think a lot of this revulsion to those voting for the GOP began with the publication of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” That also contributes to the anger.

After this election season, it is incumbent among all of us to try and work to overcome so much of the anger that is prevalent in our politics.

Finally, I think a lof of elements of the left have been rather smug. I think Mr. Jaquith has done a good job of avoiding this, but a lot of his colleagues have not. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there is an enormous disconnect in this country. A lot of people on the left look with absolute contempt at those on the right. It’s not a healthy contempt. So many times, I hear “How could anyone be so dumb as to vote Republican?”

FWIW, I hear the same thing from conservative friends about Democrats, too. It does cut both ways. But in either case, I’m pretty baffled by this outlook. People to whom the political process is important cannot fathom the thought process of people who disagree with that. (And conclude that their opposition is “evil” as a result. Abortion is Exhibit A.) What an unhealthy, incurious outlook that is!

I can’t remember if it was Rep. Bob Ney’s (R-Ohio State Penitentiary)legislation to rename french fries as “freedom fries”, or the re-nomination of George Bush in 1984, but when the Republican party offered up Sarah Palin, as a worthy VP behind a sign that said “Country First”, it was certain – the people who control the Republican Party are absolutely convinced that Republican voters are stupid. I’m just agreeing with them.

I have no doubt there are those on the left who intensely dislike the other side. However, I conclude that it is more intense and emotional on the right after looking at a few things: the rhetoric itself (which, granted, is a subjective judgment), the logic or lack thereof for their opposition (again subjective), the amount of threats the President has received in comparison with others (yes even Bill Clinton), and the numerical rise in hate groups. No, not everyone on the conservative side can be attached to one or more of those things. I am just saying that it certainly isn’t even and that the irrational anger motivated out of things that may not be legitimate is particularly alarming and prevalent when it comes to this president.